The Trump administration has launched an investigation into the law, calling it "anti-Catholic." The bishops say it would force them to break their oaths.
There’s something pretty ironic here about the law being written to address a Jehovah’s Witnesses problem but the reactionaries instantly call it anti-Catholic.
Anyway, isn’t it really stupid for the law to specifically say that it doesn’t apply to anyone other than religious figures? Like, it almost seems like the only reason they even made this law was to bait controversy for some reason. Not to mention how obviously non-enforceable it is (any other Catholics here should know that it’s very common for confession to be completely anonymous, so Priests can always just lean on that).
edit: Apologies, only part of the law explicitly singles out clergy to no longer be protected from their duty to report when receiving information via privileged communication.
edit edit: Keld correctly points out that this singling out is just for the function of fully clarifying the responsibilities of the clergy as mandatory reporters; it’s poorly worded, but it only targets the clergy as much as the rest of the law, and doesn’t add more responsibilities to the clergy than other mandatory reporters.
It doesn’t say that. It adds priests and rabbis and other spiritual leaders to the list of mandatory reporters.
Don’t spread misinformation about sexual assault.
We’re both right and we’re both wrong. I should’ve checked the text of the law more carefully before commenting.
Emphasis mine:
(b) When any person, in his or her official supervisory capacity with a nonprofit or for-profit organization, has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect caused by a person over whom he or she regularly exercises supervisory authority, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency, provided that the person alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed by, contracted by, or volunteers with the organization and coaches, trains, educates, or counsels a child or children or regularly has unsupervised access to a child or children as part of the employment, contract, or voluntary service. ((No)) Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060.14
The law specifically says that clergy are the only ones who aren’t exempted from the duty when they specifically learn about abuse from privileged communication. So, yes, the law adds them to the same responsibility that other public officials have. That’s great. But then it specifically carves out a responsibility for them that is a different standard than what other authorities get.
Obviously, if you have a principled anti-religious materialist position you probably don’t mind that too much, but there’s still an aspect of the state going after clergy on the basis of them being clergy that raises some uneasiness. And yeah, obviously there’s only so much CSA a church can get away with before blowback starts to hit.
Nothing in this subsection (1)(b) shall limit a person’s duty to report under (a) of this subsection.
When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county 26 coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional 27 school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service 28 counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of 29 children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care 30 providers or their employees, employee of the department of social 31 and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit 32 staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills 33 program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds 34 or any volunteer in the ombuds’ office, or host home program has 35 reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or 36 neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to 37 be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040.
38 p
In other words, everyone else also has to report if they find out through privileged information, like a patient talking about abusing/being abused to their doctor, too.
That thing there just makes it so that clergy can’t hide behind their role as supervisors of an organization without making, say, the person running a local red cross or soccer club a mandatory reporter.
It is very poorly worded and that is what they will pounce on. But be for real.
Oh they probably will. Especially with this supreme court. Had I made this law I would have specified that anyone covered under (A) cannot get out of their responsibility by citing that they acquired privileged information through a different role. But the damage is done with the wording.
There’s something pretty ironic here about the law being written to address a Jehovah’s Witnesses problem but the reactionaries instantly call it anti-Catholic.
Anyway, isn’t it really stupid for the law to specifically say that it doesn’t apply to anyone other than religious figures? Like, it almost seems like the only reason they even made this law was to bait controversy for some reason. Not to mention how obviously non-enforceable it is (any other Catholics here should know that it’s very common for confession to be completely anonymous, so Priests can always just lean on that).
edit: Apologies, only part of the law explicitly singles out clergy to no longer be protected from their duty to report when receiving information via privileged communication.
edit edit: Keld correctly points out that this singling out is just for the function of fully clarifying the responsibilities of the clergy as mandatory reporters; it’s poorly worded, but it only targets the clergy as much as the rest of the law, and doesn’t add more responsibilities to the clergy than other mandatory reporters.
It doesn’t say that. It adds priests and rabbis and other spiritual leaders to the list of mandatory reporters. Don’t spread misinformation about sexual assault.
We’re both right and we’re both wrong. I should’ve checked the text of the law more carefully before commenting.
Emphasis mine:
The law specifically says that clergy are the only ones who aren’t exempted from the duty when they specifically learn about abuse from privileged communication. So, yes, the law adds them to the same responsibility that other public officials have. That’s great. But then it specifically carves out a responsibility for them that is a different standard than what other authorities get.
Obviously, if you have a principled anti-religious materialist position you probably don’t mind that too much, but there’s still an aspect of the state going after clergy on the basis of them being clergy that raises some uneasiness. And yeah, obviously there’s only so much CSA a church can get away with before blowback starts to hit.
Yes now let’s keep reading.
In other words, everyone else also has to report if they find out through privileged information, like a patient talking about abusing/being abused to their doctor, too.
That thing there just makes it so that clergy can’t hide behind their role as supervisors of an organization without making, say, the person running a local red cross or soccer club a mandatory reporter. It is very poorly worded and that is what they will pounce on. But be for real.
Right, I see the point now. They definitely should’ve worded it differently.
I don’t know, though, it just seems like it’s likely that the USCCB will be able to get this struck down.
Oh they probably will. Especially with this supreme court. Had I made this law I would have specified that anyone covered under (A) cannot get out of their responsibility by citing that they acquired privileged information through a different role. But the damage is done with the wording.